Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
AD - 23 436_______I
AD-A2 6 436TECHNICAL REPORT EL-91-5
---7 SITE CHARACTERIZATIONof.__________ FOR REMOTE MINEFIELD DETECTION SCANNER
__________(REMIDS) SYSTEM DATA ACQUISITION
byI Katherine S. Long, Kenneth G. Hall
Environmental Laboratory
DEPART MENT OF THE ARMYh Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers
3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-6199
S LEC1
M 0YMAlSS
April 1991
Final Repori
Approved for Public Release; Distribution unlimited
91-00782
Prepared for DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYUS Army Belvoir Research, Development and Engineering Center
Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060-5606
Destroy this report when no longer needed. Do not returnit to the originator.
The findings in this report are not to be constfugd as an o'ficialDepartment of the Army positi .n unless so designated
by other aiitho',ized documpns
The contents of this report are not to be used foradvertising, publication, or promotional purposes
Citation of trade names does not constitute anofficial endorsement or approval of the uc-4 of
such commercial products.
K:
Form ApprovedREPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE O MB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of Information is estimated to avrg orprresponse, Including t1he time fici reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,teneeded, and completing and ron d rdng den estimate or any other aspect of thiscollection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Washington Hoiadicuarters Services. Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 121S Jefferson
Davis Highway. Suite 1204. Arlington. VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) I .REPORT QAT19 13. REPORT TYPJ AND DATES COVEREDJ Apriil Final report4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE S. FUNDING NUMBERS
Site Characterization for Remote Minefield DetectionScanner (REMIDS) System Data Acquisition
6. AUTHOR(S)
Katherine S. Long, Kenneth G. Hall
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER
USAE Waterways Experiment Station, EnvironmentalLaboratory, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS Technical Report39180-6199 EL-91-5
9. SPONSORING /MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING /MONITORINGAGENCY REPORT NUMBER
US Army Belvoir Research, Development, and EngineeringCenterFort Belvoir, VA 22060-5606
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, VA 22161
12a. DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited )a, _ _2'_D r\
13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)
--- The purpose of this study was to collect ground truth data from varioustarget arrays in several backgrounds under various environmental conditions toevaluate the performance of the Remote Minefield Detection Scanner (REMIDS). Atest location in Warren County, Mississippi, was characterized during summer andfall conditions. Ground measurements included surface geometry, soil,'I quanti-tative and qualitative characterization of vegetation, onsite meteorology, andsurface reflectance properties. State-of-the-art ground survey techniques wereused to place and to locate precisely a collection of various US mine types--RAAM, M15, and M19--in configurations modified from those of current US Armydoctrine. The REMIDS system uses both passive (thermal) and active (1.06-pmlaser) detector arrays., The test site was overflown several times in both thesummer and fall seasons, so that data could be acquired for development and veri-fication of automatic target recognition algorithms._. _,'__
14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGESGround truth Minefield detection Soils 107Meteorology Remote detection Vegetation 16. PRICE CODEMine Site characterization
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIrICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACTOF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT
UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIEDStandard Form 298 (Rev 2-89)
7 0 0Prescribed by ANSI Sid Z39-18
298,102
PREFACE
Funds for the Standoff Minefield Detection System (STAMIDS) demonstra-
tion activities were provided by the US Army Belvoir Research, Development and
Engineering Center under program order A9644. As part of an interagency
agreement, the Corps of Engineers, with the US Army Engineer Waterways Exper-
iment Station (WES) as the Executive Agent, is chartered with the technical
demonstration of standoff minefield detection technology resulting from Army
technology research and development. The field data collection was accom-
plished under the STAMIDS Demonstration Program, Mr. Kenneth G. Hall, Princi-
pal Investigator.
The study was conducted by WES personnel during the periods of July 1989
and October-November 1989, under the general supervision of Dr. John Harrison,
Chief, Environmental Laboratory (EL), and Dr. Victor E. LaGarde III, Chief,
Environmental Systems Division (ESD), EL, and under the direct supervision of
Mr. Charles A. Miller, Acting Chief, Battlefield Environment Group (BEG), and
Mr. Harold W. West, Chief, Environmental Assessment Group (EAG).
Ms. Katherine S. Long (BEG) prepared this report with significant con-
trib--tions by Mr. Hall, who was responsible for the overall field data collec-
tion ffort. In addition to Mr. Hall and Ms. Long, who jointly designed the
field data collection plan, the WES field team included Messrs. Thomas E.
Berry, Charles D. Hahn, Sean Brewer, David Cobb, Stephen Pranger, and
Miss Terri Justice, all assigned -c -ie EAG. Mr. David Meeker, BEG, was
responsible for the collection and reduction of the ground truth reflectance
data. Messrs. David Leese and Humphrey Barlow of the WES Instrumentation
Services Division deployed the environmental ground sensors and continuous
recorders.
Program Manager for the Mine/Countermine Program was Dr. Victor C.
Barber, EL, and Technical Team Leader of the RemoLe Minefield Detection Team
was Dr. Daniel H. Cress, Research Group, ESD. The Remote Minefield Detection
Scanner (REMIDS) Technical Research and Development Team was responsible for
the rLMIDS multisensor electronic, optical, and computer image processing
hardware. Led by Dr. Cress, the technical team included Messrs. John H.
Bailard, Raymond Casteilane, Ernesto Cespedes, Ricky Goodson, Billy Helmuth,
Willie Hughes, Brian Miles, Perry Smith, and Alfonso Vazquez, all of BEG.
Results of the image data collection and processing will appear in a later
report.
m.1
Commander and Director of WES during the conduct of the study and prepa-
ration of this report was COL Larry B. Fulton, EN. Technical Director wag
Dr. Robert W. Whalin.
This report should be cited as follows:
Long, K. S., and Hall, K. G. 1991. "Site Characterization for RemoteMinefield Detection Scanner (REMIDS) System Data Acquisition," TechnicalReport EL-91-5, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg, MS.
2
CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE. ...................................
CONVERSION FACTORS, NON-SI TO SI UNITS OF MEASUREMENT. ........... 4
PART I- INTRODUCTION ........................... 5
Background .............................. 5Purpose and Scope of Work ........................ 6
PART II: METHODS AND MATERIALS.......................7
Site Selection ............................ 7Parameters Measured ........................... 8
PART III; DATA COLLECTION AND PRESENTATION. ................ 1i
July Exercises............................11October Exercises ........................... 30
PART IV: SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION. ..................... 48
REFERENCES....................................49
APPENDIX A: SOIL ANALYSIS PROCEDURES ................ 0
Description of Laboratory Soil Analysis. ............... A3Cone Index..............................A4
APPENDIX B: ACTIVE REFLECTOMETER POLARIZATION INSTRUMENT ..... Bi
Balancing the Channels ....................... B3Focusing . . . . I.. .. ... .. .. .... .. .. ... .B4
Field of View ..... ....................... B4
APPENDIX~ C: METEOROLOGICAL AND THERMAL RECORDS, JULY 1989 .... Cl
APPENDIX D: MET"EOROLOGICAL AND THERMAL RECORDS, OCTOBER 1989 ... Dl
3
CONVERSION FACTORS, NON-SI TO SI (METRIC)UNITS OF MEASUREMENT
Non-SI un~its of rneistirem~ent used in this report can be converted to SI(nietric) uinits as follows:
- multiviy B -To Obtainacres
4,046.873 square metresdegrees (angle) 0.01745329 radiansfeet
0.3048 metresinches
2.54 centimetresMgiles (US statute) 1.609347 kilometres
4
SITE CHARACTERIZATION FOR REMOTE MINEFIELD DETECTION
SCANNER (REMIDS) SYSTEM DATA ACQUISITION
PART I: INTRODUCTION
Background
1. Since World War II, mine use technology development has outstripped
mine detection technology development. In recent years it has become apparent
that the ability to detect friendly as well as unfriendly minefields is impor-
tant in ensuring the safety of troops and civilians not only during periods of
active conflict but also after the conflict is over. Serious shortcnmings in
countermine capabilities were recognized by the US Army Science Board Summer
Study of 1986.
2. Prior to this official finding, the Environmental Systems Division
(ESD) of the US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) initiated
work in 1982 that resulted in the sensor system known as the Remote Minefield
Detection Scanner (REMIDS) System (Cespedes and Cress 1986; Cespedes, Goodson,
and Ginsberg 1988; Cress, Flohr, and Carnes 1984; Cress, Cespedes, and
Ginsberg 1987; Cress, Goodson, and Cespedes 1986; Cress and Smith 1984, 1985;
Goodson, Cress, and Cespedes 1988; Hansen 1986;* Hansen et al. 1988), The
airborne scanner portion of this sensor has been tested in several environ-
ments using an assortment of targets and backgrounds. Ground truth data have
been collected to evaluate and to verify data on ground targets and back-
grounds collected by various sensors (Long 1990; Sabol and Hall, in
preparation).
3. A US Army Standoff Minefield Detection System (STAMIDS) was to
evolve from these efforts. A team was formed of WES personnel (the STAMIDS
Technical Demonstration Team) to perform ground truth determinations against
which to evaluate the performance of various candidate systems, including the
REMIDS, to be considered in the development of the STAMIDS. The Technical
Demonstration Team designed the test and reported the results that appear
herein.
* Personal Communication, 1986, G. M. Hansen, US Army Engineer WaterwaysExperiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
9
Purpose and Scope of Work
4. The purpose of the exercise reported here was to collect ground
truth data from various target arrays in several backgrounds under various
environmental conditions to evaluate the performance of the REMIDS sensor
configuration on an airborne platform. Several runs of the sensor were made
over each area during the times in which the targets were in place. A rela-
tively homogeneous, though "natural," background of surface geometry and com-
position as well as vegetation cover was chosen to minimize variables.
5. In July 1989 the WES Technical Demonstration Team laid out a test
area near US Highway 61, south of the city of Vicksburg, MS, and west of the
Vicksburg Municipal Airport. The WES ESD Technical Demonstration Team's scope
of work included preflight site characterization by means of measurement of
surface geometry, determination of surface composition (soils), quantitative
and qualitative characterization of vegetation, and onsite meteorology (during
the times including the REMIDS overflights). Ground measurements of surface
reflectance properties in the near infrared and thermal values of targets and
backgrounds were collected, some concurrent with specific overflights, while
others were collected at other times during the characterization of the site
in both July and October 1989.
6. In October 1989 the targets were again emplaced, using a portion of
the test area used in July. Modifications to both procedures and layout
design were incorporated in the October tests from lessons learned from the
July tests. Ground data collected during the course of these tests were
reduced to a form likely to contribute to the analysis of the REMIDS images,
and they are presented in the following sections. Because of the time con-
straints, only limited statistics were generated using the ground truth data
collected.
6
PART II: METHODS AND MATERIALS
S~. * Selection
7. The site selected for the 1989 southeastern continental United
States testing of the REMIDS is located in an area immediately west of the
Vicksburg Municipal Airport, about 8 miles* south of Vicksburg on Highway 61
(Figure 1). The site w-is selected because it met the requirements of a
2#41 IV SW vICKSOuA(1 (CH I d NI(VIC~KSBURG WEST) 495 46MI To us so e%4 55' R 3E 497
71 1 29
31~ / Warrenton
4.k II'.-RG
A4 37?
3S87 35 . Imnel
SCALE 1 24000~
0 1 KILOET(
CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEETD0TTE0 LIN ES REPRESENT 5 FOOT CONTOURSNATIONAL. GEODE7IC VERTICAL DAIUM OF 1929 MS
THIS MAP COMPIES WITH NATIONAL MAP ACCURACY STANDARDS QUADRANGLE LOCAT ORFOR SALE BY U S. GEOLOG3ICAL SURVEY, DENVER, COLORADO 80225. OR RESTON, VIRGINLA 22092ANC, '30ATE OF LOUISLANA. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 70804
A FOLDER D)ESCRIBING TOPOGRAPN4C MAPS AND SYMBOLS IS AVAILABLE ON REOUEST
Figure 1. Location of test area
(map reduced from Yokena Quadrangle, Mississippi-Louisiana, 7.5 Minute Series)
*A table of factors for converti-ng non-SI units of measurement to SI(metric) units is presented on page 4.
- 7
proposed minefield (tank trafficability) and because of its close proximity to
an airport and to WES, simplifying the logistics of conducting air and ground
activities. Airhorne platform and sensor maintenance tasks were conducted in
a hangar located at the Vicksburg Municipal Airport.
Parameters Measured
Soils
8. Field analysis included measurement of moisture content and density,
as well as cone penetrometer measurements. Laboratory analyses were performed
on the bulk samples collected to determine the following:
a. Specific gravity.
b. Grain size distribution.
1. Sieve analysis.2. Hydrometer analysis.
c. Unified Soil Classification.
d. Atterberg limits (plastic limit, liquid limit, plasticityindex).
1. Organic content.
For a description of these tests, see Appendix A. Cone penetrometer readings
were also taken at each of the three sites.
Vegetation
9. Previous to the July overflights, the vegetative sampling performed
included identifying prevalent species, measuring physical sizes of individual
plants, and determining the density (individuals per unit area) of the plants.
Representative samples of all prevalent herbaceous species were clipped just
above the ground surface and were used for identification and for acquiring
size data. Plant samples and density information were taken along the center-
line from north to south of the grassy field (site A) every 65 m. Plant
height, leaf length, leaf width, and crown height were measured with a metre
stick and recorded for each sample. The representative number of plants per
unit was determined with . -m by 1-m grid frame. This aluminum frame was
subdivided with fine wire into 100 squares, each 10 cm by 10 cm (Figure 2).
The ptrcentage of vegetative cover was found by counting the number of squares
in the grid containing bare soil and subtracting that value from 100. The
percentage of cover by each prevalent species was estimated by counting the
number of squares in which a plant type was predominant. Because the gria
8
Figure 2. Grid for coverage estimate of nonwoody vegetation
contained 100 squares, these numbers correspond directly to a percentage of
cover. Number of individuals was estimated by multiplying the number in a
"typical" square times the number of squares containing the plant.
10. Species density for the hardwood area was found by using the struc-
tural cell sampling method (West et al. 1966; US Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station 1968). This method requires choosing attributes of plants
within a homogeneous assemblage to be characterized and finding the radius
required to encompass a given number (usually 20) of the individuals possess-
ing the specified set of attributes ("determinant") as the chosen tree. This
radius defines the circle on the ground known as the "structural cell," which
in turn can be converted to a density (number of trees per unit area). Spe-
cies density for the pine areas was determined by measuring the regular grid
spacing and extrapolating to numbers per acre (or hectare).
11. In October, vegetation data collected were largely restricted to
qualitative descriptors.
Meteorology
12. The micrologger setups were placed in the test site to record data
from meteorological sensors and from the "staring" radiometers, devices which
measure apparent radiometric temperatures of the mines, the calibration tar-
gets (blackbodies), and the background surrounding them. All mines, sensors,
9
and special targets throughout the entire test field were located relative to
the test site using standard survey techniques.
Polarization and reflectance
13. The WES Battlefield Environment Group, in support of REMIDS
development, has developed a device for measuring relative reflectance in
backscatter and degree of polarization. This device is known as the active
reflectometer polarization instrument (ARPI). The ARPI device is designed to
measure retro-reflected polarized laser return at 1.06 pm from natural back-
grounds under field conditions at near-normal incidence. The ARPI unit
directs a polarized laser beam toward the surface of the terrain area using
the same optical path that is viewed by a set of matched, cross-polarized
detectors. The ARPI in use is shown in Figure 3. Additional information
about the ARPI is contained in Appendix B.
Figure 3. The active reflected polarization instrument (ARPI)
10
PART III: DATA COLLECTION AND PRESENTATION
July Exercises
General
14. The main data collection site was a long (approximately 800 m),
narrow, grass-covered field adjacent and parallel to the runway at the Vicks-
burg Municipal Airport. The field was separated into two different sections
by a drainage ditch. The northern three-quarters of the test field was used
as the target emplacement area, while the southern one-quarter of the field
was used as the special target/sensor calibratio, area. The entire area had
been used for cropland until recent years. At the time of the tests reported
here, the vegetation cover was principally "volunteer" grasses, with furrows
still evident on the soil surface from the earlier row-crop practice. Soils
data and both quantitative and qualitative vegetation data were taken at the
time of the tests. Pertinent meteorological measurements were made throughout
the testing period. Other areas were ch:racterized for background only, and
large target arrays were not placed within them.
Soils
15. The soil texture was fairly uniform, a sandy, silty clay, rich in
organic content, a soil typically found in a floodplain with a history of
tillage.
16. Soil samples were taken at the airport test site, in the cotton
field, and in the soybean field. Soil description involved cone penetrometer
sampling, visual observation, and bulk sampling for subsequent laboratory
analysis described further in Appendix A. Visual observation of the soils in
each area revealed high similarity among them, not surprising because all were
located in an active floodplain. The soil texture throughout the individual
test sites was determined to be uniform. A bulk sample was taken from 0-6 in.
(0-15 cm) of the surface soil at representative locations. The uniformity of
the soil justified only a few soil samples, three being used to represent the
area of study. The results of the soils measurements and analysis can be
found in lable 1. Cone penetrometer values obtained are shown in Figure 4.
Results of laboratory studies are shown in Figure 5.
11?"
Table 1
Cona Penetrometer Data July 1989
Airport Test SiteStake 1 Stake 2
Depth Reading Reading Reading Reading Reading Readingin. 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean
0 70 120 50 80 40 30 50 40
1 150 170 140 153 50 50 90 632 190 240 130 187 160 120 80 1203 350 310 240 300 240 160 70 1574 400 410 370 393 380 220 70 2235 510 440 440 463 450 260 100 2706 540 500 490 510 390 300 200 2979 410 640 570 540 320 400 300 340
12 620 580 450 550 210 340 550 36715 360 260 250 290 401 * 300 23318 550 300 390 413 400 * 350 *250
Stake 3 Stake 4
0 20 20 50 30 100 160 150 1371 50 30 90 57 130 190 220 1732 210 50 140 133 140 260 220 2073 240 140 240 207 190 300 240 2434 250 160 220 210 330 360 280 3235 340 200 300 280 440 380 300 3736 330 240 300 290 500 360 450 4379 390 340 200 310 610 350 750 570
12 280 310 310 300 620 510 600 57715 210 240 280 243 740 640 640 67318 230 310 310 283 750 610 600 653
Cotton Field Test SiteDepth, in. Reading I Reading 2 Reading 3 Mean
0 120 50 50 731 400 400 140 3132 580 520 390 4q73 530 450 400 4604 520 400 300 4075 500 390 270 3876 380 400 250 3439 360 240 280 293
12 290 200 390 29315 190 130 190 17018 140 240 150 177
(Continued)
• Rod fell through.
(Sheet 1 of 4)
12
Table 1 (Continued)
Soybean Field Test Site
Depth. in. Reading 1 Reading 2 Reading 3 Mean
0 70 50 100 73
1 350 410 120 293
2 510 430 400 4473 360 360 350 3574 350 390 330 357
5 410 460 400 423
6 450 290 620 453
9 450 300 500 417
12 250 10 450 267
15 140 240 300 227
18 170 250 360 260
Airport Test SiteStake 1 Stake 2
Depth Reading Reading Reading Reading Reading Reading
in. 1 2 3 Mean _1 2 3 Mean
a 70 120 50 80 40 30 50 40
1 150 170 140 153 50 50 90 63
2 190 240 130 187 160 120 80 1203 350 310 240 300 240 160 70 157
4 400 410 370 393 380 220 70 223
5 510 440 440 463 450 260 100 270
6 540 500 490 510 390 300 200 297
9 410 640 570 540 320 400 300 340
12 620 580 450 550 210 340 550 367
15 360 260 250 290 400 0* 300 233*
18 550 300 390 413 400 0* 350 250*
Stake 3 Stake 4
0 20 20 50 30 100 160 150 137
1 50 30 90 57 130 190 200 1.73
2 210 50 140 133 140 260 220 207
3 240 140 240 207 190 300 240 243
4 250 160 220 210 330 360 280 3235 340 200 300 280 440 380 300 373
6 330 240 300 290 500 360 450 4379 390 340 200 310 610 350 750 570**
12 280 310 310 300 620 510 600 57715 210 240 280 243 740 640 640 673
18 230 310 310 283 750 610 600 653**
(Continued)
* Rod fell through.
** Contains a reading of 750 corresponding to off the scale.
(Sheet 2 of 4)
13
Vo
Table 1 (Continued)
Cotton Field Test SiteDepth, in,. Reading I Reading 2 Reading 3 Mean
0 120 50 50 731 400 400 140 3132 580 520 390 4973 530 450 400 4604 520 400 300 4075 500 390 270 3876 380 400 250 3439 360 240 280 293
12 290 200 390 29315 190 130 190 17018 140 240 150 177
Soybean Field Test SiteDepth in. Peading I Reading 2 Reading 3 Mean
0 70 50 100 731 350 410 120 2932 510 430 400 4473 360 360 350 3574 350 390 330 3575 410 460 400 4236 450 290 620 4539 450 300 500 417
12 250 100 450 26715 140 240 300 22718 170 250 360 260
Airport Test SiteStake 1 Stake 2
Depth Reading Reading. Reading Reading Reading Readingin. 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean
0 70 120 50 80 40 30 50 401 150 170 140 153 50 50 90 632 190 240 130 187 160 120 80 1203 350 310 240 300 240 160 70 1574 400 410 370 393 380 220 70 2235 510 440 440 463 450 260 100 2706 540 500 490 510 390 300 200 2979 410 640 570 540 320 400 300 340
12 620 580 450 550 210 340 550 36715 360 260 250 290 400 0* 300 233*18 550 300 390 413 400 0* 350 250*
(Continued)
* Rod fell through.
(Sheet 3 of 4)
14
Table I (Concluded)
Airport Test SiteStake 3 Stake 4
Depth Reading Reading Reading Reading Reading Readingin. 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean
0 20 20 50 30 100 160 150 1371 50 30 90 57 130 190 200 1732 210 50 140 133 140 260 220 2073 240 140 240 207 190 300 240 2434 250 160 220 210 330 360 280 3235 340 200 300 280 440 380 300 3736 330 240 300 290 500 360 450 4379 390 340 200 310 610 350 750 570*
12 280 310 310 300 620 510 600 57715 210 240 280 243 740 640 640 67318 230 310 310 283 750 610 600 653*
Cotton Field Test SiteDepth, in, Reading 1 Reading 2 Reading 3 Mean
0 120 50 50 731 400 400 140 3132 580 520 390 4973 530 450 400 4604 520 400 300 4075 500 390 270 3876 380 400 250 3439 360 240 280 293
12 290 200 390 29315 190 130 190 17018 140 240 150 177
Soybean Field Test SiteDepth, in. Reading I Reading 2 Reading 3 Mean
0 70 50 100 731 350 410 120 2932 510 430 400 4473 360 360 350 3574 350 390 330 3575 410 460 400 4236 450 290 620 4539 450 300 500 417
12 250 100 450 26715 140 240 300 22718 170 250 360 260
* Contains a reading of 750 corresponding to off the scale.
(Sheet 4 of 4)
15
Airport Test Site (July)(including soybean and cotton F lekds)
700 -l
Eo Stake I+ Stake 2
a) Stake 3
V Soybean Filtd Test SiteX Cotton Field Test SiteL
L
E 400 C0
OO
0 200-UC
00
01 100 4 5 6 2 5
Depth, inches APC
Figure /4 Cone penetrometer values
Vegetation
17. The test site used in the July exercises encompassed areas contain-
ing five distinct vegetation types typical of floodplain development: in areas
along the Mississippi River
18. The first site (site A) (Figure 6) contained grassy fields that had
been plowed until about 2 years before, but since then had not been cultivated
but rather had been allowed to revert to mostly native or naturalized grasses
with occasional forbs. The second (site B) (Figure 7) was a planted pine
stand about 15 to 20 years old at the time of this study. The third (site C)
(Figure 8) was a stand of hardwoods, predominantly sweet gum trees. The
fourth (site D) (Figure 9) was a skip-row planted cozton field, and the fifth
(site E) (Figure 10) was a soybean field.
19. Site A, the grassy location, was chosen as the primary data collec-
tion site and was divided into four separate target areas. The other four
sites (B, C, D, and E) were used as secondary sites, their primary purpose
being to serve as thermal imaging targets representing local vegetation types
to be used in background contrabt and comparison analysis.
16
_4
000,~c K0, 00
-- I I Hil
000(0N1 I70
N00( 000 0000
0(~~00MTO0O O~ot VA'11 00 000 0)05
Fiur 5. SoilM gradtio sheet005
i~Fr'17
Figure 6. Site A - grassy field
tie,
Figure 7. Site B - planted pine stand
18
Figure 8. Site C hardwood stand
Figure 9. Site D cotton field
19
Figure 10. Site E soybean field
Grassy field
20. This field (site A) exhibited nearly total grassy cover, except for
a few low spots of standing water and other small areas bare of significant
vegetation. The northern section of the test area had been mowed 2 weeks
prior to testing. At the time of testing, the vegetation was less than 1 m in
height, unlike the southern section, which had not been mowed recently and had
grasses reaching 3 m (Figure 6).
21. The results of the vegetation measurements of site A (Figure 6) can
be seen in Table 2. The predominant species found were Johnson grass (Sorghum
halepense (L.) Pers.), Bermuda grass (Gynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.), Dallis
grass (Paspalum dilatatum Poir.), curled dock (Rumex sp.), a sedge (nutgrass)
(Cyperus roundus L.), unidentified forbs, and purslane (Portulaca sp.), a
succulent creeping plant (Correll and Correll 1975; Gleason arid ronquist
1963).
Pine stand
22. Site B (Figure 7) included a planted stand of pines approximacely
15 to 20 yars old arranged in two d erent grid schemes. These stands were
located southeast of the airport test field. Both stands appeared to be about
the same age. Adjacent to one of the stands was a patch of pines killed by
the Southern pine beetle. However, the remaining area of that stand (Table 3)
20
v 4r44r 4 4 4U r-O r-4 o4 O'jO 004 - 0-4c C Z
4444401
4 WI(D 0 v 100 tUi ) 0 000 C 00 0 00 tt 0 00C 0 L
4J1 W n0 04CN4 f-- Ln 04 P- 04C' Ln -4 . -4 1 4 fLn
p.4
*'4 V)00 N0 0 t1n Nq - 4 cJ tLnr-4 -~4 -4 I I L
ca
0
0 ) EO 00 m 0 0 .4 0M0 0 flr- 0 ir) uLr- 0,-4 C'1 04" r.u -1-4 4:T 4N C 14 (NJ viLA-. Cs -cq J 'A c n I 4 CJ
(44 4.J 5 r cLIC' C14 V) Le) Vt) Lf l nu,
)a.- 4 ('JO C) 4 ) r4 -1 C%4 0 0 C%4 1 04 Zt -4C -4 0 C0(N
C14
a)1 U) M V) (A U) EnCI W ) ) U)I En to V L) U) tfE) 0 m m00 m)C W) W 0 U) W0 m W U)C Ut ) (n co a)r-4 -4 ta.co p~- w p ) p) M M)5.dM 4 w) M)54 0) 0)5$4 5-4
'n 4 0) o o w b 4 W- t)60 SbO W- )tO -4 P -' 5-4 )bD 0)$ tE-o 4aF4h u W U 60 U bJD bw () bb41 0 010 10 0"0 w)U 0 0m 0)U C0 0 "o W0U CACO Ln d 0 En0)
r. () : (A~ :5 4 ) -4HU) *-4 ) *-4U M H *dU,-I )0) .- *-4 U)
01 0 VE -4b W r4Z - O -4 0 04 -4P> C nr-4>0 .- 4 X 4 r-4 rO : - 4' N $ r 5 - Q r4J A= u 4
u 0 0 w0000 m0 0U mr 40 0 m 0 m 0 000: m0 0),1 -1 co C~ -)co n) cn m ') cl n C4-C U) ~ in ) cm-) n C- 4 gz 0
-4~'- 4 -,
bO 00fCf U 0 0 I 00 U,) QQQ C14U)L( 00 tf)0C C00 a)4JL.,-1 0 .-4)LoC n 1 C14 ( r 4 l ,I r-4 U-)L4 cnU 'I - 0)U- ) 0n
*.-4 ()
P4m 0
-4-4 :5C' %D 4.0 C14 cr N-N OLn 040 " 0 0 ll - 0000(
zi 21
ul a\ U,V)
(440
a)
04-
W )
r-4I-,4J
Q)
0) C
0) 44a)-
C-11
co .
00
41) Nfo a) u-:>~~~~~~' a)a)nLn 4Inc 1:
E i CZ O r-4 c r- j r4 r r-4 f44
.'4j
'V a) C ~ O Q( 4-4
41 ., 0 0 r- -. It CO co Lr ,ci 0 -r- .4 ~-4 -4 -4 11 4 r-44 N- q
14-4 17I
0, 0
11000 00 C1N Q) a)2-4 -4
'V'V 0)
0 41 41 3
cuC 0 -4r-4 Co
22
and the second stand showed no obvious damage. The patch containing the dead
trees was planted about 6 ft apart in rows that were 6 ft from the adjacent
row, resulting in a density of about 1,210 trees per acre (3,000 trees per
hectare) assuming a 100-percent survival rate. The other stand was planted in
rows with trees about 6 ft apart as well. Each adjacent row was separated by
about 8 ft, implying a density of about 908 trees per acre (about 1,270 trees
per hectare). In this case, however, approximately 18 percent had died or
were missing from the pattern; consequently, the density was only around
740 trees per acre (about 1,840 trees per hectare). The live trees and the
dead trees were generally the same height, but the dead trees had smaller
diameters.
23. The live pine stands contained some hardwoods in the understory,
such as sweet gum (Liquidambar styruciflua L.), oak (Quercus sp.), and Eastern
red cedar (Juniperus virginiana L.). The dead pine stand had been invaded by
box elder (Acer Negundo L.) and sweet gum approximately 3 m tall. The second
pine stand averaged a height of 45 ft (13.7 m) and a diamete- of 18.3 cm. The
rows were planted on a bearing of 255 deg. The dead patch of trees in the
first stand averaged 30 ft (9.1 m) in height and 5.47 in. (13.9 cm) in diam-
eter. The live trees were a bit larger, averaging 42 ft (12.9 m) in height
and 6.85 in. (17.4 cm) in diameter. Detailed measurements are given in
Table 3.
Hardwood stand
24. Site C (Figure 8) contained a stand of hardwoods, mostly sweet gum,
located near the pine forests. These trees existed in a "natural" forested
pattern as opposed to the row patterns of the pine stands. The diameters of
representative trees at breast height (dbh) were measured. The average dbh
was 4.7 in. (12.1 cm) with a range of 2.1 to 11.5 in. A radius of 5 m
(area - 78.5 sq m) was required to encompass 20 of the sweet gum trees, yield-
ing a plant density of 0.25 plant per square metre, or about 2,500 trees per
hectare (1,000 per acre). The mean height of the trees as determined by a
clinometer was 63.2 ft (19.3 m), ranging from a small, young tree at 35.5 ft
(10.8 m) to the tallest tree at 85 ft (25.9 m) (see Table 3).
Cotton field
25. Site D (Figure 9) was located in a cotton field south of the air-
port test site in a Mississippi River floodplain. The cotton plants had
reached full vegetative growth; i.e., they were fully leafed out, they had
reached a mature height, and they were blooming. Soil in the field is typical
23
of an alluvial formation: by visual inspection, a sandy, silty clay rich in
organic matter. The cotton was planted using the skip-row method (two adja-
cent rows of cotton alternated with an empty row constituting the basic ele-
ment of the planting pattern) with the rows running on a bearing of 270 deg.
One cycle of planting (i.e., two rows of cotton and one empty row) occurred
approximately every 8.2 ft (2.5 m). The plants in adjacent rows were planted
on 36-in. (0.91-m) centers with an average plant density of 13 stems in a 1-m
distance. Throughout the field, the plants were generally uniform. The aver-
age plant height was 1 m and the average plant crown width was just under 1 m.
Soybean field
26. Site E (Figure 10) was located in a soybean field near the cotton
field site. The plants had reached vegetative maturity. The soil of the area
was typical of alluvial soils built up from flood deposits, being a sandy,
silty clay high in organic content. The beans were planted in traditional
rows spaced 30 in. (760 cm) apart on a bearing of 0 deg (magnetic North). The
plants in the field were fairly uniform in height and density, with the aver-
age plant height just under I m. The average plant crown width was 28 in.
(700 cm). Because the plant crowns of adjacent rows touched each other, the
middles (spaces between rows) were scarcely visible from above. The average
density of the plants along a row was 19 stems in a 1-m distance.
Meteorology
27. An example of meteorological data recorded throughout the test can
be found in Figure 11. The complete record spanning 12 July through 24 July
is found in Appendix C For the July 1989 exercise, relative humidity, air
temperature, precipitation, solar loading, soil temperature at three depths,
and wind velocity were recorded from 1100 hr, 12 July through 2400 hr,
13 July; 2400 hr, 14 July through 2400 hr, 16 July; 100 hr, 21 July through
2400 hr, 22 July; 0030 hr, 24 July through 2400 hr, 24 July.
28. An example of thermal data giving the recorded temperatures of
entities shown in Figure 12 spanned, with some interruptions, from 12 July
through 24 July. Hatched bars indicate days of REMIDS overflights. The com-
plete record is given in Appendix D.
Target areas
29. The three minefields, target areas 1, 3, and 4, were located in the
northern section of the airport test field (site A) and were laid out to eval-
uate the sensors' ability to find the various mine/minefield types in a grassy
24
ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARYVicksburg Airport 13 July 1989
10. 40
~80 - -03r
60 0 '
20 I 200 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
0.2 wo0o 0
00015 70
w~ 0.06 A 200~
0.A 0OO000 4 6 10 12 14 16 18 2 24
TIn (Hours)
140
em ~i L 1)eep
30 3 in Deep-- 6 in Deep
25
o 2 4 6 6 10 12 14 16 16 20 22 24
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Figure 11. Example of meteorological record of July 1989 test period ,
N - 4
Thermal DataVicksburg Airport 13 July 1989
60 80
40 70
30 so
3 10 124a 8 o i 14 to 16 30 fh W2CPt
70 0
60 0 G*Plt
0o 20 4h d Plate\\ _ 1 6 30
so02
0s
so soo
540 4
0 2 4 6 a 10 1s 14 16 to s0 a 3
Figure 12. Example of thermal record of July 1989 test period
26
field. Target area 2 filled most of the southern section and was designated
as the Special Targets Area (Figure 13).
30. Target area 1 was intended to simulate a 50-m by 50-m remote anti-
armor mine system (RAAM) minefield. Forty-six M75 mines were "randomly"
emplaced in the minefield at a realistic distribution but an increased density
for artillery-delivered mines. (See Figure 14 for the specific configuration
employed.) All mines were placed with the convex side upward. No attempt was
made to simulate orientation such as that produced with an artillery delivery.
31. Target area 3 was a 70-m by 100-m M-19 antitank (AT) minefield
(Figure 15). Forty-five mines were tactically emplaced according to newly
developed doctrine (phased minefield pattern - Standard A) (US Army Engineer
School 1988). This pattern dictates two straight rows of mines at each end of
the area located 100 m apart with a row following an imaginary sinusoid
through the middle. The mines were emplaced a nominal 3 m off the sinusoid,
alternating left and right with each successive mine, resulting in a nominal
spacing of the mines cf 6 m.
32. Target area 4 was intended to simulate a 50-m by 100-m M-15 AT
minefield. This minefield was emplaced using the same pattern as the M-19
field, again using 45 mines, resulting in a denser pattern because the field
was smaller. As in the previous field, the mines were alternated left and
right 3 m from the centerline, but this time the mines were emplaced 4 m apart
on a line (Figure 16), resulting in a linear density of 0.9 mine per metre
front.
33. Target area 2, also known as the Special Targets Area, was set up
in the southern section of the test site, its primary purpose being sensor
calibration. Surplus mines of the three types being tested were placed in
known positions in this area, and the grass was removed so the sensor could
have a clear line-of-sight to the mines. The secondary purpose of this field
test was data collection from special targets, including 4-ft by 8-ft wooden
panels painted black and white, 2-ft by 2-ft metal squares painted using vari-
ous paints and colors, and painted pans of water. For a complete layout, see
Figure 17.
ARPI data
34. Ground level measurements yielding percent polarization values are
given in Table 4. Table 5 enumerates the targets and the polarfzation mea-
surements obtained from these targets in the 24-27 July 1989 time frame. The
27
Owt Gro- <. a MA %
Twist Are M
[1 ~tTwist ArmU4
1 !Twst Am4
vmWM Uuof
Scale
Figure 13. Location drawing of July test layout
28
*o * --
10 w 4
"WrTH, m
Figure 14. July RAAM (M75) target area 1
4- f
4 *
Figure 1 . July AM175 target area 1
- - A -,
O ,: ..... .. .:
Fiur 5. JlyM9 are ae 3'
I-------------------
L*
+~ 4
0
0*
1 1 +
U U U 0
W1;TH, m
Figure 16. July M15 Target Area 4
view angles of the ARPI employed were 0, 10, and 20 deg. A summary of these
measurements can be seen in Table 5 and Figure 18.
October Exercises
General
35. In the October exercise only site A was characterized and used for
target array emplacement. Site A was well-covered with senescent Johnson
grass as well as other occasional grasses and forbs. Site preparation began
on this area situated between the airport and the railroad tracks on 3 October
1989, with the area north of the wooded ditchbank- being mowed to about 0.5 m
from the soil surface (Figure 19). The northernmost section of this field to
the east-west hardtop road was left in its "natural" state, predominantly
Johnson grass as tall as 3 m, with patches of still green Bermuda grass and
30
SPECIAL TARGETS
N --L. *~ 50, 80 grithalon 2, 25, 50 & 75%
- *0 paint panels 2 Ea 34088 & 2 e alk FG5 Mtr . black, white thermal
* 4 black, gray and white steel plates+ * M-15 34088
* M-15 CARC Green stage 1* * M-19 WES OD* * RAAMS Alkyd Forest Green* * GEMMS Alkyd Forest Green* * Foreign Mines
4' x 4' resolution panel4' x 8' resolution panel4' x 8' resolution panel
0 5 101520
Scale (m)
Figure 17. July calibration targets area 2
Put grass (purple nut sedge). The Johnson grass had fully mature fruiting
oodies and its vegetative parts had turned brown. Because of the nature of
the high, tough vegetation being mowed, patches of the grass were missed by
the mower. This lent variability to the substrate (background) being prepared
for mine placement.
Soils
36. Soils data were not collected for the October REMIDS exercise.
Vegetation
37. Vegetation data were not collected as intensively in October as in
July. An aerial view including site A as it was being mowed is shown in Fig-
ure 20. The area mowed "high" would receive mines in the configuration shown
in the northernmost portion of site A (Figure 21). A special area in the
southern part of site A was prepared to include flat plowed, furrowed, short-
mowed, medium-mowed, and "natural" strips 5 m wide with the longer side
oriented in the east-west direction, normal to the proposed flight path.
31
0J0
.o (d 04 0 ~ 4r Cr C M%0 94) 01
(4.). > ~ 4- to j 14r- r-0
%0 C Y% Lo .o 4e
(4 ; a 4-4J<04)P1 r-4,-.4 r-4 t-I- 0 s
4) .0 4
4) (44 0 b 4
01 -44~40 C- , .r-I- r- A) I o ~4
41 0) (4D4 .
10-
U~~ ~~ 0 'b-'c'
4 Co
o
r- N 0 7C14 04 U4 r4 4) - -qT4 d
4)p 44.P
C. 4) sI Z 04M 0 4) r P1
10 (4
bo b U)4)
(4W t Q.) P1 'Q U~O 4cl 0)Jj. 4 5 4 4
0o It v v V) w' ,
ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 44 10tor o ) wz
o 4 w 4 s-i w 00 C'C4'c'OocJr..
x4 19) 4 1 - c U 4 W~ ' -,t- 41P1 0 1 4 o z2
z) Z rt- A40 I-0
4) 4-A1 4- 4P1 r.s- 4
4J -4 0)P. . . . . . .r s- ) I t en ON CN (4 -44 I4) 4
(1 O 0 4 0 r- -4bO P 4 41 0 541P1 05 Id- r4 %0 m 00mi 0 m I O0P(b00~4
zJ CN 4 0 ur r- r 4 00 r-XX.~04-JJP1 %*L~~.O.rIH 0
.r4dr-404 m
d) 0 32
Table 5
ARP Polarization Measurements After July 1989 REMIDS Tests
Percent Polarization
Angle. degrees
WES Targets 0.0 5.0 10.0 20.0
BaSO4 22.3 -- 22.3 23.7
50% 20.2 -- 18.6 16.5
25% 20.2 -- 18.6 16.5
M19 44.8 -- 43.9 43.0
M15 78.8 -- 76.1 54.5
RAAM 25.2 25.9 25.1
BaSO4 22.3 -- 22.7 23.4
Dead grass 29.1 -- 23.1 21.7
Bare soil 22.3 -- 22.1 23.1
Dead grass 21.0 -- 29.3 21.3
Halon 50% 18.5 -- 18.6 15.4
Bahia grass 13 7 -- 8.7 6.3
Johnson grass 10.6 -- 13.0 14.1
Bare soil 19.8 -- 30.1 23.6
Nut grass 14.8 14.4 10.0
Water bog 27.6 23.6 23.0 27.9
Bare soil (cotcon field) 19.6 -- 21.5 18.9
Cotton leaf 6.4 -- 9.1 6,4
Bean leaf 15.5 -- 14.8 11.7
33
90
~50 .. .... ..
0
30
20
100 5 10 20
angle, degrees
BaSO4 Halon 50%Halon 25% M1 9 M15 RAAM BaSO4 Dead grass
35
30
425 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
0
15 5 10 20--
----- ....... ...-I-.....-- ------- - -
Fiur 8.ARIpoaiztinmesreensfo-peia-rgt
-3
~!."
~7 W
Figure 19. Mowing the grassy field prior to target placement
Triads of M19, M75, and MI5 mines were placed into each of four sections in
each strip.
38. A qualitative inventory was made of the vegetation on the ditchbank
on the south side of the field and between the railroad and the field. This
inventory was conducted on 16 October 1989, so the condition of the vegetation
where noted refeis to an early west central Mississippi fall. No killing
frost had yet occurred. The following numbering sequence begins at the inter-
section of the "blind" hardtop road parallel and west of the airport runway
and the ditch that serves as the southern boundary of what is currently known
as the Airport Test Target site A.
39. The numerals generally correspond to locations so identified on
Figure 20 and appear in approximate order of decreasing biomazs in each
location.
1. Johnson grass, goldenrod, aster.
2. Black willows (N>15), cottonwood, +1., above.
3. Switch cane to 2 m.
4. Cottonwood, goldenrod (3 plants/sq m).
5. Willow, cottonwood, Johnson grass.
35
Figure 20. Airphoto of Site A, October exercises
6. Willows, sumacs, mixed Johnson grass and goldenrod, saw briers(in line with the middle of the target plots).
7. Break (two-thirds west of special target plot).
8. Cottonwood, willow (predominant at southwestern corner ofsite A).
9.Cottonwood (N-3), hickory, Johnson grass, goldenrod (betweensite A and railroad).
10. Cottonwood, willow, Johnson grass, goldenrod, and Bermuda ontreeline. Willow, Johnson grass, goldenrod, and Bermuda nearfield.
11. Cottonwood, willow. Turn northward, cottonwood treelinebetween Johnson grass path and plots (west), Johnson grass
36
Cuatw Un. of rIght
11ud a <10a Ba
Kit~
'V)
Figure 21. Drawing of Site A showing prepared target areas
37
plots continuing along width of trail (northward), saw briers,
Polyganum sp. Path is mostly dead brier material.
12. Treeline turns and heads north. Cottonwood, Johnson grass,saw briers, Polyganum sp.
13. Treeline along railroad tracks, then break in (linear) tree-line, Johnson grass, goldenrod on front.
Meteorology
40. A freeze occurred on the night of 19 October 1989. A brief visit
the following morning revealed no damage; however, a considerable warming
occurred in subsequent days, resulting in a wilting of the green plant parts.
A fall condition (leaf color change, leaf fall, etc.) had been progressing
slowly since activity began at the site earlier in the month; the freeze
accelerated the process. Since this exercise was scheduled to last 2 weeks,
this senescence became quice readily apparent before the end of the exercise.
This vegetation change could have influenced background "signature" in the
REMIDS images obtained in this exercise.
41. Plots of meteorological parameters data acquired during the periods
within which REMIDS overflights were conducted are found in Figure 22.
42. Thermal records of the backgrounds (five) and target types (three)
were initiated at about 1600 hr on 16 October 1989 and continued (with some
interruptions) until 2 November 1989. These data are displayed in Figure 23.
Target areas
43. There were five distinct target areas located in site A, the grassy
field. From south to north the specially prepared plcts were laid out as
shown in Figure 21. The first target area is described as follows: five
strips were each prepared to present a different background to the sensor
(Figure 24). Beginning at the south of the specially prepared strips there
were (a) a 5-m by 10-m strip left as high grass; (b) the next strip cut to a
height of about 0.5 m; (c) the next strip mowed close to the surtace; (d) the
next strip plowed and left in regular furrows at right angles to the proposed
flight line; and (e) the last strip plowed flat with no obvious furrows. The
four target sets, each composed of the principal US mine types (M15, RAAM
(M75), and M19) arranged at about a 45-deg angle from the proposed flight
path, were essentially equidistantly placed across each strip (Figure 24).
Each strip was situated at right angles to the nominal flight line.
38
Vicksburg Airport Test. 100 17 OCT 1989 3 0
8 0 20 --
V;60 10 O
40 04 4° 20 -10o
20 02 04 06 06 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
1000i Time
,-4 -1w750
500
250co 0
00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
30 Time
c 25-6 in
20 -3 in0 -- in
E 15
010
00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
N Time 20
0 i
N 000 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time
Figure 22. An example of October 1989 meteorologicP1. record
39
Vicksburg Airport Test50
30 Smooth Bare
10 Soil
02 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
50
30 Rough Bare
10 Soil
02 4 6 8 10 12 14 18 18 20 12 24
50
30 _______Short Grass
10 -(t1 m
-10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
50
30 Tall Grass
10 (ft 0.5 m)
-10 -__________________0 2 4 a 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24'50 Uncut Grass30 (2 m)10 Background
-101In Tall Grass-10 Background Out
0 2 4 6 810 1214 16 1820 2224 O TaU GranTime
- Background -M19
M15 -M74/M75
Figure 23. Example of thermal record of October 1989 test period
40
0 0 0 0 Rae0 0 0 0 Plowed
o o 0 Raked
0 0 0 0
o 0 o o
o o 0 Plowed
0 0 0 0o 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 Shor Gras
o 0 0 0
o 0 00o o o o Long Greuc
0 0 n 0
o o 0 0
o 0 0 0 Natural Grass
o 0 0 0
Special Targets Area
Vicksburg, Ms Airport, Oct 89
Figure 24. October 1989 special target areas
44. A second target area (Figure 25) containing the calibration targets
was placed immediatily north of the first target area
45. A thirid target area with 54 "randomly" emplaced RAAM's (M75) (Fig-
ure 26) was placed within a 40- Uy 70-m area arranged with longer side paral-
lel to the nominal flight line ,own the middle of the width of the M75 target
area.
46. The fourth and fifth target areas were oblique lines of M15's
bisected by the flight line (Figure 27). The sixth area contained M19's
arranged in like fashion in "virgin" (not recently mowed) high grass
(Figure 28).
ARPI data
47. ARPI data collected in November after the October overflights
included those shown in Table 6, with measurements of polarization responses
being taken for a variety of both artificial and "natural" targets. Figure 29
shows relative polarizatiun values obtained when selected targets were mea-
sured: the relationships of measurements made at different times of the year
of similar targets is shown in Figure 30. No significant correlation was
found between the two different measurement times.
41
I , I I -
0 5 10 15 20
Scale (m)
Figure 25. October calibration targets
x
X I I
K x
K
K
IK I ) I
O 510 15 20
Scale (in)
Scatterable Mine FieldVicksburg, MS, Oct 89
Figure 26. October RAAM (M75) target area
42
I At
II
0 5 101520soa@ (n)
Minefield - M- 15 -#2
Vicksburg, Ms, Oct 89
Figure 27. October M15 target areas
43
++ 4
A;+ +
0 5 101620Sole (i,)
Minefield - M- 19Vicksburg, Ms Airport, Oct. 89
Figure 28. M19 target area
48. The mines were retrieved on or about 2 November 1989 after all the
REMIDS missions had been flown.
44
Table 6
Mean Raw Image Values Acauired on 24 October 1989
Polarization Returns, Polarization Returns,Backgrounds Thermal Targets
Flat, bare soil 88GI*
Maximum 139 61 Maximum 255**Minimum 75 0 Minimum 87Mean 109 30 Mean 174Sigma 5 10 Sigma 66
Furrowed bare soil 88FUMaximum 134 76 Maximum 225
Minimum 78 0 Minimum 112
Mean 113 40 Mean 174
Sigma 7 12 Sigma 55
Low-mown grass 88FL
Maximum 132 52 Maximum 255**
Minimum 68 0 Minimum 109
Mean 100 15 Mean 176
Sigma 7 10 Sigma 58
Medium-mown grass WEGI
Maximum 145 47 Maximum 195
Minimum 66 0 Minimum 97
Mean 104 8 Mean 141
Sigma 8 8 Sigma 27
High-mown grass WEFU
Maximum 165 50 Maximum 177
Minimum 65 0 Minimum 89
Mean 104 14 Mean 140
Sigma 7 10 Sigma 30
WEFLMaximum 188Minimum 103Mean 139
Sigma 26
* Target code definitions will be furnished to qualified requesters.
** Saturated.
45
100
80
0CTS 60.N
C
c,) 40
'mMGM
20 K9
<'<___________
man-made vt~getation soil Military targets
Figure 29. November ARPI measurements
46
60 1 - 50% Halon
2 - grass
3 - soils
0)" 40 - 4-cotton leaf
0 5 - soybean
N
(15a.20- 2
2o 2 2
0 20 40
July Polarization, PercentFigure 30. Time-of-year effects on polarization response
47
PART IV: SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
49. These field tests were designed to provide quantitative data with
which to compare corresponding REMIDS data and so evaluate the performance of
the REMIDS ser.sor against a variety of backgrounds under summer and early fall
conditions in a southeastern US locale. These data can be used to assess
REMIDS efficiency in discriminating targets from their backgrounds in areas
having similar vegetation and -iil conditions as tested.
50. In the Vicksburg Municipal Airport exercises of 1989, summer and
fall, the site design and documentation method employed were demonstrated as
viable and adequate to be applied to more ambitious tests of longer duration
and greater data volume as well as more varied environmental conditions.
Moreover, automated data collection and display techniques enabled a timely
production of results, implying that preliminary performance and maturity
ratings of the sensors' technology may soon be available. The site character-
ization and target layout for the two REMIDS Vicksburg Airport tests were
sufficient for the intent of the exercise, since the attendant measurements
will allow comparison of "raw" sensor data, after being calibrated and stan-
dardized by WES algorithms, to be co-registered and compared with correspond-
ing targets, backgrounds, and calibration targets.
48
REFERENCES
Cespedes, E. R., and Cress, D. H. 1986. "Analysis of Passive Imaging Con-cepts For Remote Minefield Detection Applications," Proceedings of the 1986Army Science Conference, US Military Academy, Westpoint, NY.
Cespedes, E. R., Goodson, R. A., and Ginsberg, I. W. 1988 (April). "Multi-sensor Image Processing Techniques for Real-Time Standoff Minefield Detec-tion," Proceedings of the First National Sensor Fusion Symposium, Orlando, FL.
Correll, D. S., and Correll, H. B. 1975. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of theSouthwestern United States, Vol 1 and 2. Stanford University Press, Stanford,CA.
Cress, D. H., Flohr, M. D., and Carnes, B. L. 1984. "A Framework for DigitalAirborne Reconnaissance: Application to Surface Minefield Detection UsingPassive Imagery," Technical Report EL-84-7, US Army Engineer Waterways Experi-ment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Cress, D. H., Cespedes, E. R., and Ginsberg, I. W. 1987 (Oct). "Active/Passive Airborne Scanner: Development and Processing for Standoff SurfaceMinefield Detection," Proceedings of the IRIS Specialty Group on Active Sys-tems. Orlando, FL. I
Cress, D. H., Goodson, R. A., and Cespedes, E. R. 1986. "Standoff MinefieldDetection: 1982 - June 1986," Video Report EL-86-1, US Army Engineer Water-ways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Cress, D. H., and Smith, P. A. 1984. "Data Base for Remote Detection ofMinefields: High Resolution Passive Imagery," Technical Report EL-84-8,US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Cress, D. H., and Smith, P. A. 1985 (Nov). "Airborne Active/Passive Scannerfor Surface Minefield Detection," Proceedings of the IRIS Specialty Group onActive Systems, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA.
Gleason, H. A., and Cronquist, A. 1963. Manual of Vascular Plants, D. VanNostrand Co., New York.
Goodson, R. A., Cress, D. H., and Cespedes, E. R. 1988. "Application ofExpert System Concepts to Remote Detection of Surface Minefields," TechnicalReport EL-87-3, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Hansen, G. M., Cress, D. H., Smith, P. A., More, K. A., and Stanich, C. G.1988 (April). "Development of a Multisensor Airborne Scanner for Remote Mine-field Detection," Proceedings of the First National Sensor Fusion Symposium,Orlando, FL.
Long, K. S. 1990. "Site Characterization for Radar Experiments," TechnicalReport EL-90-8, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Sabol, B., and Hall, K. G. "Analysis of St and Scene Conditions at theMulti-Sensor Fusion Demonstration, Fort Hunter Liggett, CA, January," inpreparation, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
US Army Corps of Engineers. 1971. "Materials Testing," Technical Manual5-530, Washington, DC.
US Army Engineer School. 1988 (Sep). "Combat Engineer Reference Book,"
Department of Combined Arms, Fort Belvoir, VA.
49
US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. 1960. "The Unified Soil Clas-sification System," Technical Memorandum No. 3-357, Appendices A and B,Washington, DC.
1968. "Environmental Data Collection Methods, Volume IV: Vege-
tation," Instruction Report No. 10, Vicksburg, MS.
West, H. W., Friesz, R. R., Dardeau, E. A., Jr., Brown, G. F., Couch, L. E.,and Parks, J. A. 1966. "Environmental Characterization of Munitions Sites,Vol l," US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
50
APPENDIX A: SOIL ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
Al
APPENDIX A: SOIL ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
Description of Laboratory Soil Analysis
Specific gravity
1. This is the ratio of the weight in air of a given volume of soil
particles at a stated temperature to the weight in air of an equal volume of
distilled water at a stated temperature. Specific gravity is sampled as bulk
surficial soil.
Grain-size distribution
2. This is a descriptive measure of the soil particle size classes. It
delineates percentages of soil particle sizes by successive sieving using
sieves decreasing in size to mesh No. 200 (0.074 mm). Smaller sizes are ana-
lyzed in a hydrometer to approximately 0.001-mm diamn. As shown in Figure Al,
a sample soil gradation sheet, a bar below the x-axis shows the soil classifi-
cation corresponding to certain grain sizes. The left y-axis shows the per-
cent finer by weight passing the sieve size. The right y-axis shows the per-
cent coarser by weight retained by the sieve size. The x-axis is the particle
size in millimetres.
Soil texture and color
3. After conducting a detailed analysis, the US A-:,., Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station (WES) Soils Testing Laboratory assigns toil classifica-
tion based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and the US Depart-
ment of Agriculture and loca,.ed on each individual soil gradation analysis
sheet. A detailed explanation of the USCS is given in Technical Memorandum
No. 3-357 (USAEWES 1960).*
Atterberg limits
4. Atterberg limits represent the following three plasticity stages
that are a function of moisture ranges. Data on Atterberg limits are included
on the bottom of the soil gradation analysis sheets.
a. Liquid limit. Defines the upper plastic range of a soil.
b. Plastic limit. Defines the lower limit of the plastic range ofa soil.
c. Plasticity index. The difference between the liquid limit andthe plastic limit.
* See References at the end of the main text.
A3
kb m n m ) p lmm m ~ mJ m w m ~ ~ m ~ P M ) PMm Jq m.....
Organic content
5. The living or previously living fraction of the soil. This test
defines the organic fraction as that amount of mass lost on ignition during
exposure to 550 ° C.
Cone Index
6. Soil strength was determined by consistently forcing at a constant
rate of penetration of a standard-sized 0.2-in.-area cone through the .pa soil
to a specified depth. The force required for penetration is indicated by the
displacement on a micrometer gage and is read at the surface and at 2.5-cm-
depth intervals. Additional information detailing the cone penetrometer and
use can be found in Army TM 5-530 (US Army Corps of Engineers 1971).
A4
rito
000.0000400Mm0
at"' C00LI -
IN01 I It I
M I I I ill I l I +.40 00 00 00 5 0 0! 00 00i0ll00
T0000* 4010~ ~ j~'o 00o, ~ 010.IF
4*003*0 05*00 000 0000
HIM0U0 r0 040 030145*
000.o00o cOLo
Figure Al. Soil gradation sheet
A5
APPENDIX B: ACTIVE REFLECTOMETER.POLARIZATION INSTRUMENT (ARPI)
B1
APPENDIX B: ACTIVE REFLECTOMETERPOLARIZATION INSTRUMENT (ARPI)
1. The Active Reflectometer Polarization Instrument (ARPI) was con-
structed as a support instrument for the Remote Minefield Detection System.
The active component consists of a solid state polarized neodymium:yittrium
aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG) laser with an output power of approximately 50 mw per
square centimeter. The laser beam is sent through a set of lenses to achieve
a divergence of 1 deg and then is reflected off a coated mirror, passed
through a dichroic, to allow for optical alignment through the viewfinder,
reflected off an elliptical mirror, passed out through the receiving lens, and
reflected downward by an external mirror toward the target surface. A pair of
detectors with matched and calibrated responses are controlled by a United
Detector Technology (UDT) S380 radiometer unit fitted with an Institute of
Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE)-488 computer interface. Back-
scattered return must pass through the 2-in. receiving lens with a 3-deg field
of view, a polarizing beam-splitting cube, and then a 1,064-nm line filter
before reaching the active area of the detectors. A photograph of ARPI is
included as Figure Bl.
Balancing the Channels
2. When a field of unpolarized radiance (e.g., a sunlit diffusing sur-
face) is viewed, the output from the two channels should be identical, but
probably will not be. There will always be small differences in reflectivity
and transmission of the optics that can add up to a few percent difference in
the outputs of the two channels. The method used to balance the two channels
takes advantage of the wavelength calibration provided in the instrument.
3. The two detectors have been factory calibrated in absolute terms for
every 10 nnt of wavelength. These calibration data are stored in the removable
electrically programmable read only memory (EPROM) in the unit, and when
called upon, set the channel gain so that the output reading gives absolute
radiometric data. Since we are interested only in relative data, false wave-
length settings can be input so as to make small gain adjustments in one or
both channels until balance is achieved. Additional "fine tuning" can be
accomplished by reducing the wavelength for channel 1 by 10 or 20 nm.
B3
MI
~4 Figure Bi. Photograph. of ARPI
4- IS -.
Focus ing
4. The instrument can be focused for any distance from 60 to 120 in.
The viewfinder and radiometer channels are parfocalized so that when the view-
finder is visually in focus, so is the radiometer.
Field of View
5. The radiometer measures all 1,064-nm radiation within a 2-deg field
of view centered on the optical axis and is described by the outer circle in
the viewfinder reticle. The outgoing laser beam angle is approximately 1 deg
in diameter and is described by the inner circle in the viewfinder eticle.
The toal visual field of view through the viewfinder is approximately 6 deg.
B4
APPENDIX C: METEOROLOGICAL AND THERMAL RECORDS, JULY 1989
Cl
cAIR TXMPERATIJR SOLAR LJOADNG WS UO ) RWLAL'R ,F~
E- 2 rr110T
Z E-o 0
,WlY iim kiluIA i~i NOU
AI ~ SOLAR1 LDAI)LNG A A SOLARPRATRE p
>4 ())'4 S 9 9
z 4 .2.2z 4
ONOW
C3-C4
SOLAR LDAi) GAMR TEPRATURE WIN Dt~ 311K.
co ~ R D"ca
>4O~AAREA ft~ .~ A
3 ----- '
0
IU
N~lJ~l~dl'la)d
1)-
Q)0
tn00
00
0_1
A i l 7m lEAhE ~f '~zw -nm oT'Vs .10L 0UI
AIR TE1UPERATURE SO.A KAIGvrico D.W c ~o- .
V-4
czE- 0 I
z r
t;4 NOLLY.IlL5SdZHMuYHidMa 'HOe HOL11a3HIG QJK
SOLAR LOADING 30, TIPRA O
AMR TEILPERArhPE h. .
-V 9
3 77(0 0
0s4
C5-C6
0
0) v s 2)
0 tin 0
a&yd Ta NOIMa ab
a 0
IV
/ a * a 9 2 a aa*a 9 1 a I a ai
0 * . . .D
41j~
3 13 3 3
: °
C7-C8
-I I I I I I I I I I l;II .
30 -- 4
N4 0
t.14
4j coco)
8 8 * 3 3 a t s a a a 3 : 8 *0
~,. 5~* ci t ci.2-8 T. ZZ
APPENDIX D: METEOROLOGICAL AND THERMAL RECORDS, OCTOBER 1989
Dl
Air Temperature Wind Sed Air Temperature Wind Speeddeg C deg CMPdgCMPH 0 o PH
- 0
N 0q
0 0 '0 0 0 q QC
~~44
0a 0 0 0 c~ 0
0 HI 0
00 jj C\2 0o 0c0
0 00 0 ~N 0 0 C
Oil '0 '1 * jC 0Z0 0 0 0 c 0 0 oiz ww.
a~njjduo~;x5Sbo w3/sI1vA a.Xnjv.Idwoj, lH0s ur~x~ tAllbx wo/Cilui aoxnuoiedw..H fvoS uoT10011a Pu'A £AxPIUzH QAI1IBH uoflIVIV)H 191SO11JO5(IPI
Aix Temperature d Wind Speed Air '.emperaturc Wind Speeddeg C MPH deg C MPH
o DM I 0 0 0 co-
0) 00Q 0 CV 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0
NQ V N N NQ N
c 0 w 0D 0 0 c 00
/ 0
bl __ o
0o 0 0
w CD C2 o'
00000 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 0O
0 oI n - n z r 00 O 00 - V) 7 CV 0
X1P~n 9AlUQ - 1/412 p saa~ewa 1p %1pun ~l~~ abs U13/9419 omnv.%9dtuoL poSAjpu HQIQH uolivipw .zvloS liuaiul1o uolllon a P A AliuKajv uotiujpvH .xvjo 01305aPU
D3-D4
rempraur Wind Speed Air Temperature r 3aWind Speedre Temperatur MPH deg C MPH0 0 DC) 0 n0C
0Q 0 1 00 0 0 0 1 0 0*l ___ -7 1 -T- -
1 /4 C1 :C C Q.0 o CI,
ol 0
Go 0) JO 00
* If
N N N N,
c oc o 00 o 000 0 0 0 ____ j 0 ___ 4
0 00 cy-io bo051 n I 000 0: 0n 0 0 00 0 0 rC . 0co o0 Q N 0 If0 0 C) (V N1 (D - 0 v w NO 0 0 0 C' N N' C8 t2 z or CO w. U
piumnH OA11910H uo~jv!PvH voljos l'iquiadciuaj IWS 11o1430a puCJ APCPuILH OAWIaHZ uoijuipipp i~jos ainzuaitual poS uolaTI UA-
U
0
0i-.0(1)
Temperature 0 Wind Speed Air Temperature Wind Speed adeg C - - - MPH deg C -MPH
0 00
___- NSC C N 7N,N1 C12 IN UQ: VlC
0o 0 N
0
co A *0) U.
co -DC
0 00
-0 .0 .0 00 02~ 0N 0 1
0 0 0 0 0c0t00 00 00 0i0 0 0 0 00 0 00N.0 2 W0w.0 CNN 0 C12 In N-Z ~ C . 0 . * N ) N N - ~ C .ibsfl ui3/sj.0J 0 C.p sap N ib -ilA a o
Air Temperature Wind Speed Air Temperature Wind Spec,deg C MdPH deg C r :sMPH
0 we)- 0 D l
00 0Q I0 C 0 0 IQ N
CQN Nl N 'oN
N N lC' 1
_ _ _ /l C2 IMC
C12 ii ci-
0) co. CO0
NE N
o 10 co 0 0CNNOC\2 00 00
C c o 00 00 IC 0 C 0
0~~~ IC IC "o N5, 00 IC 0 60 -C)In N - - 0 w. 2IC ' 0o 0b 0 30-. O.zbs uz/sl'.A O Qiu~dO W~~ uo;aII psap;~n AIIHurze ub i~~~. lSUfUP
deg C MPH deg C MPH0 0 0 0 Ico- 0 -6 0 0 0 0 IDC).~0IoNC -0 a Nq - I 0 0 NO C .- 0 Iq N'oI
NQ WN N Nl cNQ N N1 C\2 C1 V
7. I ID 0C co
E- 1v -laE-
co 0o co 0o
0 .0 0 0
oQ 0D 0o co 0
Nl NQ C4 . N
0 0000 .0 0 10 000 IC2z 0 IC 00 0 15 C IC0- 1 N 0 IC 0o 0 aC 0 IC NO I
b wto/r.1A QnugauiLpSb ma/rI40A ainjucuiedat 11SAllp~tnH RA19121 uolllpea vloS 101100tia PlA Ajp~wnj wAllUIQ uorjqjpgvf jvI0S ola p
TAir TmeauerC3Wind Speed Air Temperature Wind Speedegpraur MPH deg C MPH
N N N 5N
-~c
In --
x--
00 0 0
C12C CI? 1 ~ 0
o 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 N 0 i 0 0 0 D 0 D 00 2 0 0 0 n C, 2 0 !22 tin 00w
O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b inss gapNO0i NN0ini Oi ~N i ~ i
.ibsum DAJJH UjVpH.VO ajinjvjadxa.L jjS un-apbsjp-HIIWIH UTVPP wn/ew , am9idu. j~o U01olaP T
d i eprtr :c idSedAir Temperature C:raWind SpeedA d epeueg Win -S Pee deg C - - - MPH
oeg oPH 0 ic,
0 0 - nc) 0 nn 01 0 0 - i
Q 02
0 0
No NCD N CD
on o 0n (aC aCC, c z I - CD C 02 00v NZ c
-. g a 3 0 . i
Ib tu/rl* ; NEt*LjoS lpb aAjpimHa1110 o~~lU jjO oNFor PUI AituH;AI\I - o-, -.jo Qj- ' ,,", o O1011
Ai empraur Wind Speed Air Temperature c Wind SpeedA d epeueg C- MPH deg C --- MPH
0Q 00 o 0 '00 ED0 0co N - 0'
0'0 0~ 02 0v 0
-vl 02 v -
0- 0\ 0200
0'
-r) CDc C'
o co fco z it z 0o a
z o cll (o w o - 01) 0 c0
Air Temperature raWind Speed Air Temperature vcWind Speeddeg C MPH deg C --- MPH
-1 N -l 07 I~ ,
Nl N~ N cl Nq N CN
0q 0 c 0
T0 co ~ 0) '0
CC) -- ID ~
- *
o (oo 0 0a
o 0 0QD OD
0 ~ 0 . q 02
0 o v o 0 07 01 0~ c0C t w o o o ov000~~~~~~~~ 0- 0 w00'0' 000__
All.tubil/aV4jM QH loUJqdpqH UOS UOll3ojIU PuIA Allplwnp otlICIoZJ uollv lav
Air Temperature Wind Speeddeg C MPH
000 0 00
2 - -N
4NCN N alC1 el N N2
I N Nl Nq N1
0)-
zIIo
C\2
00 bI __ V)C
olpuli 0A190 uolr'6 -I
Air __ Teprtr 0 Z 0 id pe
de C0P
CC
0 a)
00 dto 0 2C) N. 0 N - 20
00 0 0 --- N= 0
q) to ID
g-o oor
0 0D 0 v N0)wo
0Vl oa22)mj IjOo lpuii O190 uo, 0un-a ui
C) 0 0-
o 00 0 so 000n a: an E- M E a : an a
oJ oO 02 0 eO
C.) C.)
0 4 S.0 oa . - 0 11 s-Ai07 0 0- 0 s
0 00 A aEd o * a . a a
c o o c e j a e 2
I~c 0 -222222a222
0 0
Itie to
U) is ) 02 .l~il U - 5.
4-) Q4) 4
con '2 Moo 32 k
0 ) 0-0 :1 0
0. 00 o 5.. -o0
0Q 00
o~t C. 2a ~
a lo 11 o. 2-II x - .. - I
a N4
-0
0 -10 0 0 0 j 0 0 0' 0
m It C)f44
CQ w
- 0)
0 0 j ~ f C Wv0 w* 0 C','c ~ WL
0 - 0 0...450J 00 A I oN a~ $3Eo 0vi W n Y V) W U.U- E-
E- P6 -
A * C L! w c0 0
0 *t 0 1o 0 0 00 0 0
0p
01 * CCC
23~2 2 28 22 2 2S 2 ' 0
4- rI~CC-4 ,4-~4
4, ~D 1-D12
o 9- o ~0 b- :v
0~ 0 0 ca00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l cl E? -S Co .? ? ?
co.~ U) LO,. 40
- ~0 ]
C *9~-4 CC
0 0
0~0,
cv~ 0
0 0 000
9 rn n E :D-U) V X 0
3 2 R 2
Q)
0 00.
o 0 0 0 1~ 0 0
;- U) E- -B
00
U) 00 00) :r0
$-44
() 41
E-4 00
0o 0 0 U)- CO04~0
0.P-4-
--4
~O0 N N N ~O..4 N
D1- 3- D4
ol. 0
V0 *-4 a: to V 0
2 2 0
0 0 0
CQ Il 0
10o 0 - 0 1
LO01r- I I
i(0x4.
